The recent abortive intervention by the Gozo Bishop Monsignor Mario Grech on the subject of IVF treatment reminded me of what I wrote almost a year ago in the wake of the divorce referendum result. I said then:

“Let us be clear, the real losers in all this are the Maltese Church which, through its bullying tactics, has diminished its own standing and trust with its people.

“This is a self-inflicted wound. The Maltese Church has done, and is still doing, a huge amount for Maltese society. It is a basic force for good. Its work in the parishes, in old people’s homes, in schools and the many institutions it supports is outstanding. For centuries before Malta’s independence, the Maltese Church was the sole source of charitable social support. Its core values are outstanding and to be cherished.

“But it does not hold a monopoly on establishing the moral foundations in society. While its views are to be respected, it is a human institution, like any other, lobbying for its particular view of the world. But ultimate responsibility for the kind of society which a secular, liberal, parliamentary democracy like Malta should adopt lies in the hands of our representatives in Parliament, reflecting the sovereign will of the people. The need for a radical re-calibration of the balance between Church and State in Malta is long overdue.”

Unfortunately, the Bishop of Gozo appears to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from last year’s experience. I must assume, in fairness to him, that Monsignor Grech, stuck for a theme to his homily on the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, thought that it would be appropriate – and, let’s face it, not a little sensational for a prelate always conscious of the need for coining a striking headline – to speak about “the culture of death”, which is exemplified in his eyes by “highly abortive IVF treatment”. If he was seeking headlines, he certainly made them – for the wrong reasons, and to the detriment of the Church.

They were the wrong headlines for two reasons. First, his abortive intervention has upset the very people he was trying to influence and who, rightly, in this country have the ultimate responsibility for passing legislation on such social issues as fertility treatment, divorce and others. Secondly, he was utterly wrong in labelling fertility treatment a “culture of death”. It is reprehensible that he should have chosen such emotive language. To describe a medical treatment, the prime and overriding purpose of which is to glorify a new life, not to destroy it, as “a culture of death” is offensive and wrong.

Monsignor Grech decided to launch a scathing attack on in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), describing it as a “highly abortive” technique. Straying from his brief as a prelate into the world of politics, he urged politicians not to encourage the culture of death when IVF legislation is debated in Parliament. He then unwisely took a side-swipe at politicians who “take up the front seats in liturgical celebrations but are ethically absent (sic) when they take up their seats in Parliament,” (prompting the immediate question about bishops in their pulpits so obsessed with the exercise of power in a secular context, so blinded by their own self-righteousness as to lose sight of the charity, compassion and tolerance that are supposed to be the hallmarks of their faith). He said that Church and state could not remain indifferent to the suffering of infertile couples and appealed to scientists to find “ethically good ways” to help them overcome their difficulties. As his solution to the problem of infertility, he proposed naprotechnology, an acronym for natural procreative technology, and psychological help for infertile couples – all action, in fact, which falls woefully short of any actual help.

Monsignor Grech’s main thrust, however, was that procreation could not be separated from the conjugal act, as was the case in medically assisted procreation. In two sweeping and unsubstantiated statements, he said that the procedure did not respect parents, especially the mother, because it heightened expectations when in reality the success rate was low. And it was a “highly abortive” technology that did not respect life.

He also criticised embryo freezing and the adoption of spare frozen embryos, two proposals on which cross-party consensus in the House of Representatives to regulate the current situation had been reached. Never at a loss for a lurid phrase, the Bishop said that embryo adoption was “like a showcase where people could buy human life”, and then went on to quote some extraordinary statistics of the number of “unhealthy” (by implication malformed) babies born as a result of medically assisted procreation in the last 34 years – statistics that have been roundly rejected as inaccurate by experts.

So there we have it. The Bishop weeps crocodile tears about the sorrow of those unable to have children, but then sets his face against any – any – of the scientific advances that could alleviate their wish to bring children into this world.

Yet, as the medical experts – and the Members of Parliament who have been examining this issue – have pointed out, their proposals for the regulation of IVF treatment in Malta specifically reject any screening of embryos for genetic or sexually-transmitted diseases to exclude the defective ones before being implanted precisely in order to avoid any “abortive” procedures. By contrast with the fundamentalist stance adopted by Monsignor Grech, what a relief it was to read the intelligent and reasoned reply of Father Emmanuel Agius, who explained the Church’s deep reservations, but went on to acknowledge that “although the Catholic Church found IVF treatment morally objectionable, it also believed legislation allowing reproductive technologies could be tolerated for the sake of public order and to avoid greater evil: the unregulated practice of assisted procreation.”

I personally do not agree with the statement that IVF is morally objectionable. I do not regard the use of the birth control pill as morally objectionable (and nor, I suspect, do the majority of Catholics in the western world, including Malta). Yet the birth control pill was condemned by Pope Paul VI in 1968 in Humanae Vitae on the grounds that use of the pill was a sinful interruption of natural conception, and later Vatican pronouncements have simply extended that logic to IVF. Not for the first time, the Church lays itself open to the charge of fighting the advance of science and technology with mediaeval superstition against anything that smacks of “playing God” as it sees it.

IVF is just another form of medical treatment. To assist conception is not against nature. It is to help nature along. It ensures the joy of parenthood to infertile couples to whom nature has been unfair. IVF treatment, sensibly regulated, offers the miracle of life to previously infertile couples. In many cases it leads to a married man and woman having a child, forming a family, enriching a marriage – the very state that society encourages.